Mass. Democrats back gay marriage
LOWELL -- Massachusetts Democratic Party leaders last night backed a resolution advocating unambiguous support for gay civil marriage, ignoring deep divisions in the party's ranks.
The resolution, approved in a nonbinding vote that left the party's official platform untouched, would appear to be only the second by a state party in the nation. It was approved by a majority voice vote by the approximately 200 members of the state committee present, less than two weeks before the Legislature is scheduled to decide on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
State Party Chairman Philip Johnston said the vote sends a clear message to the nation that "we support protecting the rights of these individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us."
"I think it's very important the party speak out on this issue," he said.
In an interview immediately after the vote, Tom Barbera, a state committee member from Waltham, said: "Massachusetts is on record for supporting full civil rights. To have the party behind this issue is a blessing to me and every lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. It's a historic day." In September, the state committee of the New York Democratic Party passed a similar resolution. It was believed to be the first time a state party nationally had taken such a position.
On Nov. 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its landmark ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to enter into civil marriages under the state's constitution. Yesterday, gay rights advocates praised the party for moving so swiftly on the issue, saying it would send an important message to lawmakers as they consider the constitutional amendment.
Members of the state committee unanimously passed another resolution last night, opposing the constitutional amendment and any other attempt to amend the constitution to discriminate against lesbian or gay families.
"It's very significant that they are saying that Democrats don't discriminate," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "Democrats shouldn't discriminate. That doesn't mean that all Democrats have to personally like gay marriage, but they should not discriminate.
"It's a helpful message to legislators, reminding them what the Democratic Party stands for," she said. The Bay State Democratic Party has held an official position in favor of Vermont-style civil unions and has opposed any constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.The chief sponsor of that amendment is state Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat, and one of the most vociferous supporters of the legislation is House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, also a Democrat. In addition, the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry, who has stopped short of endorsing gay marriage. Instead, Kerry has supported gay civil unions and called for states to determine the issue for themselves, rather than the federal government.
Johnston said yesterday that he doubted that Kerry's campaign would be harmed by the resolution, but said it was too important an issue to let campaign considerations affect it.
"He's running a national campaign, and I think every campaign for president has to make its own decision," Johnston said. "But we feel very strongly that this is a matter of basic civil rights for gay and lesbian citizens, and the party should be supporting it."
A spokesman for Kerry could not be reached for comment on the party vote. Some Democrats said that last night's vote on the resolution would be important to those who cast it, but not necessarily to legislators or even many of the party's registered voters.
In reality, some said, the resolution was symbolic.
"It's more important how people in the district feel," said Senator Michael W. Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat, who said he would vote in favor of the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, so that voters could decide the issue at the ballot box.
"The question is, what's more democratic than putting a question on the ballot?" he said. "Isn't that democratic? That's what the Democrats should be talking about."
Gay marriage opponents said the vote was not surprising, given the generally liberal profile of the Democratic committee, which is made up of directly elected members and others appointed to represent various constituencies, such as labor, gays and lesbians, and African-Americans.
"It is surprising that the state committee has adopted a position that is not held by the party's major presidential candidates, including Senator Kerry," said a statement issued by Ronald A. Crews, spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which opposes the SJC's ruling. "We believe that, again, the Democratic State Committee acted out of step from the voters of Massachusetts."
Statewide polls have generally suggested that a slim majority of Massachusetts voters back same-sex marriage, although the most recent surveys appear to reflect a state that is now almost evenly divided on the issue.
The SJC's ruling is scheduled to go into effect in May, unless gay marriage opponents can persuade the court to overturn or further stay its decision.
The state Senate has asked the court for an advisory opinion on a bill that would define marriage as a heterosexual union, but would create civil unions that would offer same-sex couples all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under Massachusetts law. The state Republican Party has made no move to endorse gay marriage. The GOP platform, last updated in 2002, states the party's support for all citizens to be "equal before the law," but does not explicitly refer to gay or lesbian couples.Dominick Ianno, executive director of the state GOP, said the party stands behind Governor Mitt Romney, who has said he favors bestowing a limited list of rights and benefits to same-sex couples, but disapproves of Vermont-style civil unions and same-sex civil marriage. He also supports the movement to amend the constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual union. "We think the governor's got the right approach to protect the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman," Ianno said. "This issue is so important -- and it's really not partisan -- that we should let the voters decide. This is not a Democrat and a Republican issue."
By Raphael Lewis and James Vaznis, Globe Staff, 1/30/2004
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company © Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Friday, January 30, 2004
Thursday, January 29, 2004
ACLU Opposes Religious Discrimination with Taxpayer Funds
With the passage of the C.A.R.E. Act (S. 476) last year, the Senate made clear that it would not allow federally funded religious discrimination. Despite this, the Bush Administration and several Members of Congress continue to seek funding for religious discrimination.
The Community Services Block Grant is a multi-million dollar fund used to address the causes and conditions of poverty and to assist people in achieving economic self-sufficiency. In the coming days a bill to reauthorize this grant (H.R. 3030) will be voted on by the House of Representatives. In its current form this legislation includes provisions that allow discrimination or misuse of government funds by religious organizations.
Government can and does work collaboratively with faith-based organizations. When these organizations receive public dollars, however, they must play by the same rules as other non-profits. Whether an organization is faith-based or not, there must be adequate protections in place to protect individual civil rights and religious freedom. If the bill passes in its current form, it would allow religious organizations to discriminate according to religion when hiring staff for these taxpayer-funded services.
With the passage of the C.A.R.E. Act (S. 476) last year, the Senate made clear that it would not allow federally funded religious discrimination. Despite this, the Bush Administration and several Members of Congress continue to seek funding for religious discrimination.
The Community Services Block Grant is a multi-million dollar fund used to address the causes and conditions of poverty and to assist people in achieving economic self-sufficiency. In the coming days a bill to reauthorize this grant (H.R. 3030) will be voted on by the House of Representatives. In its current form this legislation includes provisions that allow discrimination or misuse of government funds by religious organizations.
Government can and does work collaboratively with faith-based organizations. When these organizations receive public dollars, however, they must play by the same rules as other non-profits. Whether an organization is faith-based or not, there must be adequate protections in place to protect individual civil rights and religious freedom. If the bill passes in its current form, it would allow religious organizations to discriminate according to religion when hiring staff for these taxpayer-funded services.
Equality Florida Outraged Over Court Ruling Defending State’s Anti-Gay Adoption
BanFour gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children, a Florida state statute passed at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign.
“The courts ruling is not only bad news for gay Floridians, it is bad news for children who will be denied good homes,” said Nadine Smith, executive director for Equality Florida. “While the legal fight continues to unfold, we believe it is past time for the legislature to repeal this state-sanctioned bigotry.”
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the men, who are foster parents seeking to adopt children in their care despite the 1977 law.
Florida is the only state in the nation with a complete ban on adoption by gays, whether married or single. The law linked to the movement led by Bryant has withstood several challenges in state court.
Florida argued the state has a right to legislate its "moral disapproval of homosexuality" and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development.
"We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate," Judge Stanley Birch wrote in the unanimous decision by the three-judge panel. "Any argument that the Florida Legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law."
The ACLU expects to take at least a week before deciding how to proceed. It could ask the full appeals court to consider the issue.
“If single people can adopt in Florida, if gay people can be foster parents and legal guardians, and if there are thousands of children languishing in foster care, there can be no justification for Florida's ban on gay adoptions other than impermissible prejudice and hostility toward gay people.” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the Florida ACLU.
Edward Schiappa, a University of Minnesota law professor who follows gay issues, believes the case is destined for Supreme Court review next year. He believes the state will have a hard time defending the law there because of its inconsistent policy allowing gay foster parents while banning gay adoptive parents.
Rally To Be Held in Tampa to Challenge the Bigoted Law
Thursday, January 29, 2004 at 6:00 pm
Equality Florida Headquarters
3708 W Swann Ave, Tampa
(just east of corner of Dale Mabry and Swann)
Join us this evening as our community and supporters gather to protest , strategize and organize around lifting the adoption ban. -- C. Vonn New, Central Florida Field Director & IT Manager, Equality Florida
BanFour gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children, a Florida state statute passed at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign.
“The courts ruling is not only bad news for gay Floridians, it is bad news for children who will be denied good homes,” said Nadine Smith, executive director for Equality Florida. “While the legal fight continues to unfold, we believe it is past time for the legislature to repeal this state-sanctioned bigotry.”
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the men, who are foster parents seeking to adopt children in their care despite the 1977 law.
Florida is the only state in the nation with a complete ban on adoption by gays, whether married or single. The law linked to the movement led by Bryant has withstood several challenges in state court.
Florida argued the state has a right to legislate its "moral disapproval of homosexuality" and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development.
"We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate," Judge Stanley Birch wrote in the unanimous decision by the three-judge panel. "Any argument that the Florida Legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law."
The ACLU expects to take at least a week before deciding how to proceed. It could ask the full appeals court to consider the issue.
“If single people can adopt in Florida, if gay people can be foster parents and legal guardians, and if there are thousands of children languishing in foster care, there can be no justification for Florida's ban on gay adoptions other than impermissible prejudice and hostility toward gay people.” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the Florida ACLU.
Edward Schiappa, a University of Minnesota law professor who follows gay issues, believes the case is destined for Supreme Court review next year. He believes the state will have a hard time defending the law there because of its inconsistent policy allowing gay foster parents while banning gay adoptive parents.
Rally To Be Held in Tampa to Challenge the Bigoted Law
Thursday, January 29, 2004 at 6:00 pm
Equality Florida Headquarters
3708 W Swann Ave, Tampa
(just east of corner of Dale Mabry and Swann)
Join us this evening as our community and supporters gather to protest , strategize and organize around lifting the adoption ban. -- C. Vonn New, Central Florida Field Director & IT Manager, Equality Florida
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Same-Sex Marriage: Equality? Or Second Class Status?
Op-Ed Article by Rev. Troy D. Perry
Maybe I should be more excited about this year's presidential election process.
But I'm not.
For the first time in our history, leading Democratic candidates for president are publicly discussing gay rights, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.
And yet, all of it has left me with a sense of unease.
But first, a bit of background:
Recently, my partner Phillip and I did what millions of other Americans did: We sat together in the living room of our home and watched President George Bush deliver the annual State of the Union Address.
Our interest was the same as millions of other families: What will happen to the economy? To our tax rates? To job security and job growth? How will the President's "compassionate conservatism" impact our family?
Despite my hopes (and I've always been an optimist) I was deeply disappointed when the President voiced support for a constitutional amendment denying legal recognition to my family, and to millions of LGBT families like mine. My partner and I work our jobs, pay our taxes, contribute to our community. We bought a home together; we have made a life together. We've been in a committed relationship for 19 years. We've had a Holy Union ceremony in the U.S. and we were legally married under Canadian law in Toronto last July. We're a family. Period.
Yet there we sat, watching the President of the United States endorse a constitutional amendment that for the first time in U.S. history would deny legal rights to one group of people. Of course, I understand the President was playing to his core supporters in the Religious Right. But he did so at the expense of equality for America's millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families.
Yes, I'm an optimist but I'm not naive. I've watched political leaders up close for almost four decades. I know when politicians are taking highly principled stands. And when they are pandering to their political base. So was I disappointed and angered? Yes. Was I surprised? No.
But that's not my only disappointment as this election year cycle heats up. Quite frankly, I'm also disappointed in the Democratic candidates for president.
First, let me make a disclaimer. In my role as Moderator of Metropolitan Community Churches, I am strictly nonpartisan. While the MCC movement has a strong commitment to social activism, we have a core commitment to diversity and that includes political diversity. In our U.S. churches, we welcome a wide range of Democrats, Log Cabin Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party supporters people of every political persuasion. I respect and celebrate this political diversity. And, of course, U.S. law prohibits churches from endorsing political candidates.
But in my personal life, I am and have been a long-time member of the Democratic Party. And at this point in the political process, I have usually given my personal endorsement to a candidate in the Democratic Party.
But I'm holding off this year.
You see, the longer I live, the stronger my passion grows to see the LGBT communities achieve full and unfettered equality under the law including the marriage laws.
For 35 years, Metropolitan Community Churches have worked to change the marriage laws. In 1970, MCC filed the first-ever lawsuit demanding California's recognition of a same-sex marriage. We lost that battle but we launched three decades of debate around marriage equality.
In that time, I've come to four conclusions:
First, anything less than full marriage equality is settling for second class status. Oh, I know the argument: Can't we get most of our rights through civil unions? Or domestic partnerships? Can't we settle for something less than full marriage equality and still make progress?
Listen, those weren't acceptable answers to women who worked for full legal equality at the turn of the 19th century. Those weren't acceptable answers to African-Americans who worked for full legal equality in the 1950's and 1960's. And they aren't acceptable answers to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities who are working for legal equality including marriage equality at the dawn of this new millennium.
Second, I've come to wonder if settling for incremental change might simply be yet another form of internalized homophobia? As a person of faith, I believe God created some people heterosexual, and other people as gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender. I also believe, as many faith traditions teach, that all of God's creation is good. If we believe that really believe that! how can we settle for second best, which is anything less than full equality under the law?
I hear the voices that say, "Change takes time." "Be patient, Troy." "You can't expect politicians to risk their careers over same-sex marriage right."
Well, the truth is that the greatest changes in American society have come from bold political strokes. Not incremental change. Think of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil Rights Act. The Americans With Disabilities Act. Incremental? No. Bold? Yes.
Third, it's time for us to demand marriage equality from our political leaders. Of the four leading Democratic contenders for the Presidency: Kerry, Dean, Clark and Edwards -- not one supports full and unfettered equality under the marriage laws. Not one. Each has settled for something less than full equality.
(To their great credit and our lasting thanks, Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton, whom one writer called the "principled unelectables," each endorsed full same-sex marriage rights and elevated their marriage support to a national platform.)
Fourth, we must put human faces to the marriage equality struggle. I have long said, "To know us is to love us," and that has been my experience. That's why I encourage you to take part in the "Freedom To Marry" public actions scheduled for Valentine's Week Feb. 9-15. Go to courthouses and marriage bureaus and apply for marriage licenses. Take your friends. Invite the media. A free marriage equality action kit is available by writing to info@MCCchurch.org. Attend the public rallies scheduled across America on Valentine's Day, Saturday, Feb. 14. They are listed on-line at www.DontAmend.com. Learn more about events and resources offered by NGLTF, HRC, PFLAG, LLEGO, the ACLU, Marriage Equality and other excellent organizations by visiting www.freedomtomarry.org. Write a letter to your local newspaper. Talk to your neighbors and your families. We'll win the battle for same-sex marriage rights when we put human faces to the struggle for equality.
I've made up my mind: I am committing the rest of my life to help win the struggle for same-sex marriage equality. Not because I think marriage is the answer for every LGBT couple. But because I believe anything less than full marriage rights is also less than full equality and imposes a second class status on LGBT people.
============================================
Rev. Troy D. Perry is a veteran human rights activist and Founder of Metropolitan Community Churches, the world's largest and oldest church group with a primary, affirming ministry to the LGBT communities. Perry was the first openly gay member of the Los Angeles Human Rights Commission and a past delegate to the White House Conference on Hate Crimes. Photos of Rev. Troy D. Perry, and wedding photos of Rev. Perry and his partner, Phillip Ray DeBlieck, are available at www.MCCchurch.org, or by writing to info@MCCchurch.org.
============================================
(Permission granted to reprint, reproduce, post or forward.)
For Additional Information, Contact:
Jim Birkitt. MCC Communications Director
8704 Santa Monica Boulevard, Second Floor
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Tel. (310) 360-8640, Ext. 226
E-Mail: info@MCCchurch.org
Website: www.MCCchurch.org
Op-Ed Article by Rev. Troy D. Perry
Maybe I should be more excited about this year's presidential election process.
But I'm not.
For the first time in our history, leading Democratic candidates for president are publicly discussing gay rights, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.
And yet, all of it has left me with a sense of unease.
But first, a bit of background:
Recently, my partner Phillip and I did what millions of other Americans did: We sat together in the living room of our home and watched President George Bush deliver the annual State of the Union Address.
Our interest was the same as millions of other families: What will happen to the economy? To our tax rates? To job security and job growth? How will the President's "compassionate conservatism" impact our family?
Despite my hopes (and I've always been an optimist) I was deeply disappointed when the President voiced support for a constitutional amendment denying legal recognition to my family, and to millions of LGBT families like mine. My partner and I work our jobs, pay our taxes, contribute to our community. We bought a home together; we have made a life together. We've been in a committed relationship for 19 years. We've had a Holy Union ceremony in the U.S. and we were legally married under Canadian law in Toronto last July. We're a family. Period.
Yet there we sat, watching the President of the United States endorse a constitutional amendment that for the first time in U.S. history would deny legal rights to one group of people. Of course, I understand the President was playing to his core supporters in the Religious Right. But he did so at the expense of equality for America's millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families.
Yes, I'm an optimist but I'm not naive. I've watched political leaders up close for almost four decades. I know when politicians are taking highly principled stands. And when they are pandering to their political base. So was I disappointed and angered? Yes. Was I surprised? No.
But that's not my only disappointment as this election year cycle heats up. Quite frankly, I'm also disappointed in the Democratic candidates for president.
First, let me make a disclaimer. In my role as Moderator of Metropolitan Community Churches, I am strictly nonpartisan. While the MCC movement has a strong commitment to social activism, we have a core commitment to diversity and that includes political diversity. In our U.S. churches, we welcome a wide range of Democrats, Log Cabin Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party supporters people of every political persuasion. I respect and celebrate this political diversity. And, of course, U.S. law prohibits churches from endorsing political candidates.
But in my personal life, I am and have been a long-time member of the Democratic Party. And at this point in the political process, I have usually given my personal endorsement to a candidate in the Democratic Party.
But I'm holding off this year.
You see, the longer I live, the stronger my passion grows to see the LGBT communities achieve full and unfettered equality under the law including the marriage laws.
For 35 years, Metropolitan Community Churches have worked to change the marriage laws. In 1970, MCC filed the first-ever lawsuit demanding California's recognition of a same-sex marriage. We lost that battle but we launched three decades of debate around marriage equality.
In that time, I've come to four conclusions:
First, anything less than full marriage equality is settling for second class status. Oh, I know the argument: Can't we get most of our rights through civil unions? Or domestic partnerships? Can't we settle for something less than full marriage equality and still make progress?
Listen, those weren't acceptable answers to women who worked for full legal equality at the turn of the 19th century. Those weren't acceptable answers to African-Americans who worked for full legal equality in the 1950's and 1960's. And they aren't acceptable answers to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities who are working for legal equality including marriage equality at the dawn of this new millennium.
Second, I've come to wonder if settling for incremental change might simply be yet another form of internalized homophobia? As a person of faith, I believe God created some people heterosexual, and other people as gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender. I also believe, as many faith traditions teach, that all of God's creation is good. If we believe that really believe that! how can we settle for second best, which is anything less than full equality under the law?
I hear the voices that say, "Change takes time." "Be patient, Troy." "You can't expect politicians to risk their careers over same-sex marriage right."
Well, the truth is that the greatest changes in American society have come from bold political strokes. Not incremental change. Think of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil Rights Act. The Americans With Disabilities Act. Incremental? No. Bold? Yes.
Third, it's time for us to demand marriage equality from our political leaders. Of the four leading Democratic contenders for the Presidency: Kerry, Dean, Clark and Edwards -- not one supports full and unfettered equality under the marriage laws. Not one. Each has settled for something less than full equality.
(To their great credit and our lasting thanks, Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton, whom one writer called the "principled unelectables," each endorsed full same-sex marriage rights and elevated their marriage support to a national platform.)
Fourth, we must put human faces to the marriage equality struggle. I have long said, "To know us is to love us," and that has been my experience. That's why I encourage you to take part in the "Freedom To Marry" public actions scheduled for Valentine's Week Feb. 9-15. Go to courthouses and marriage bureaus and apply for marriage licenses. Take your friends. Invite the media. A free marriage equality action kit is available by writing to info@MCCchurch.org. Attend the public rallies scheduled across America on Valentine's Day, Saturday, Feb. 14. They are listed on-line at www.DontAmend.com. Learn more about events and resources offered by NGLTF, HRC, PFLAG, LLEGO, the ACLU, Marriage Equality and other excellent organizations by visiting www.freedomtomarry.org. Write a letter to your local newspaper. Talk to your neighbors and your families. We'll win the battle for same-sex marriage rights when we put human faces to the struggle for equality.
I've made up my mind: I am committing the rest of my life to help win the struggle for same-sex marriage equality. Not because I think marriage is the answer for every LGBT couple. But because I believe anything less than full marriage rights is also less than full equality and imposes a second class status on LGBT people.
============================================
Rev. Troy D. Perry is a veteran human rights activist and Founder of Metropolitan Community Churches, the world's largest and oldest church group with a primary, affirming ministry to the LGBT communities. Perry was the first openly gay member of the Los Angeles Human Rights Commission and a past delegate to the White House Conference on Hate Crimes. Photos of Rev. Troy D. Perry, and wedding photos of Rev. Perry and his partner, Phillip Ray DeBlieck, are available at www.MCCchurch.org, or by writing to info@MCCchurch.org.
============================================
(Permission granted to reprint, reproduce, post or forward.)
For Additional Information, Contact:
Jim Birkitt. MCC Communications Director
8704 Santa Monica Boulevard, Second Floor
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Tel. (310) 360-8640, Ext. 226
E-Mail: info@MCCchurch.org
Website: www.MCCchurch.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)